If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
V-8 powered Seabee
Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered
Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee. The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb, cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two stainless steel mufflers. http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml Corky Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You forgot that it gets air-conditioning as a bonus of the conversion...
I have seen the plane, nicely done... Rob Corky Scott wrote: Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee. The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb, cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two stainless steel mufflers. http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml Corky Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Aye Barnyard Boob,
I think we all know your agenda. Caveat emptor for certain. If you have constructive comments fine, otherwise shut your pie hole. Noticed you didn't want to critique the new Honda-Lyc, Bombardier or Jabiru engines. Too new for you? Or would they be considered auto-conversions since their not Lyc or Cont? Bart -- Bart D. Hull Tempe, Arizona Building for the new Century. Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html for my Subaru Engine Conversion Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html for Tango II I'm building. Barnyard BOb -- wrote: (Corky Scott) wrote: Here's a link to view a successfull conversion from a Franklin powered Seabee to a Chevy LS-1 powered Seabee. The conversion has flown over 600 hours. Improvements in climb, cruise, fuel consumption and takeoff over original. Interestingly, the conversion makes more power than the Franklin powered original, yet burns less gas. In addition, it's quieter as it incorporates two stainless steel mufflers. http://www.v8seabee.com/index.shtml Corky Scott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Builders, pilots and salesmen tell whoppers as much as fisherman...and the first liar doesn't stand a chance. g If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge how many would buy it? Dictionary.com - Anecdotal: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: When was the last time someone posted that their auto conversion was a POS. Beware of hidden agendas Barnyard BOb -- caveat emptor |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge
how many would buy it? Beware of hidden agendas You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets...... That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many Seebees are there left in the world in need of power? Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous ice with that last post. These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew...... I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post does nothing more than to express your bias. If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find a better way? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BD5ER wrote: If these folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge how many would buy it? Beware of hidden agendas You seem to be implying that these guys are out to take advantage of the thousands of unsuspecting Seebee owners just to line their pockets...... That just doesn't add up - unless they are real foolish con men. How many Seebees are there left in the world in need of power? Stick to your Lycosaurs if you wish and keep the rest of the auto conversion group on their toes with your chicken little comments, and keep reminding everyone that you've done it the same old way for 50 years. But as far as I'm concerned you've taken a step over the line and are treading on thin, libelous ice with that last post. These guys seem to have done a pretty good job. 600 hours is longer than the O-200 lasted in the lasted 172 I flew...... I hate to say it but your post was almost 100% predictable. We all know you think all auto conversions, with the posable exception of the Corvair, should be grounded. Your comments, while IMHO are a bit close minded, are still quite useful in that they help restrain over enthusiastic conversions but this post does nothing more than to express your bias. If you've got something constructive to say, do so. Otherwise why don't you find something better to do with your time than picking on guys trying to find a better way? Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain. Jerry |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message ink.net... Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain. Jerry Building on what Jerry said... "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport to make an uneventful dead stick landing. Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong* way than the right way. KB |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kyle,
What has been the experiences with the other members of your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this last year? Why did the first homebuilt engine quit? I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single pilot and a homebuilt engine. I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well. I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont install. Thanks -- Bart D. Hull Tempe, Arizona Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html for my Subaru Engine Conversion Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html for Tango II I'm building. Kyle Boatright wrote: "Jerry Springer" wrote in message ink.net... Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain. Jerry Building on what Jerry said... "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport to make an uneventful dead stick landing. Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong* way than the right way. KB |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Bart D. Hull" wrote in message m... Kyle, What has been the experiences with the other members of your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this last year? Why did the first homebuilt engine quit? I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single pilot and a homebuilt engine. I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well. I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont install. Thanks -- Bart D. Hull Tempe, Arizona Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html for my Subaru Engine Conversion Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html for Tango II I'm building. Kyle Boatright wrote: "My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport to make an uneventful dead stick landing. Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong* way than the right way. KB The first aircraft went down because the subaru ate a valve. There was some talk in the chapter that the engine's oil temperatures were very high, but the owner has never personally confirmed this in my presence. The gear failure was related to *where* the weight was located - all of it was waaay up front. The electrical problems on the third aircraft had to do with a ground wire that had an intermittant connection which took out the brain box. Obviously, with two ignition systems - particularly if at least is a magneto, the chances of losing BOTH ignition systems is very small. The chances of losing the *single* home baked ignition system is much higher. Again, most folks don't have the ability, financial ability, or patience to properly engineer an engine conversion that is up to Lycoming or Continental standards. There are all sorts of NTSB cases which indicate this. I'm sure it can be done, but at what price? 5-10 years and/or a million dollars in development costs? To KNOW you've got the equivalent of a Lycoming or Continental, that's what it would take... This year's only *bad* chapter experience with a certified engine was a fellow with a Continental 0-300 who wasn't happy with his compression readings, so he pulled the cylinders and reseated the valves or something. A non-event, as it was not a failure, and was dealt with on the ground. That's one of the better things about certified engines. The engines and systems are fairly robust, so most problems don't result in the fan stopping. KB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. But look at the bright side: With this one, if the SeaBee engine fails, you get to shoot the dead-stick landing in air-conditioned comfort. :-) On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0700, "Bart D. Hull" wrote: I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well. But Continental and Lycoming had to convince a *very* skeptical FAA about the reliability of the FADEC. They had to prove that the FADEC is at least as reliable as two magnetos. I remember an article, years ago, about what Porsche had to do to certify the PFM engine for the Mooney. They had to prove the two independent ignition systems *were* completely independent. I think they even had to apply a sudden dead short across one, just to prove the other one would keep running. I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont install. A good goal, and worthy of discussion. With one exception, the failures I hear about have been fairly random, mostly related to the subsystems rather than the core engine. I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There *should* be two completely independent ignition systems. Two batteries, two electronics boxes, two sets of plug wires, two plugs per cylinder. The second should be solely a backup, connected to *nothing* in common with the primary system. If the primary system uses the distributor drive to time the ignition, the backup system should run off a hall effect sensor on the flywheel. Buy a drycell battery and run it directly to the backup ignition electronics...no connection to the primary bus. I say a drycell simply because of their ability to hold a charge a long time. Test the ignition momentarily during runup and slap a charger on the backup system every week or so. That way if your electrical system goes to hellandgone, you've got a completely independent backup. The drycell should be sized to give you at least a half-hour of flight time...I'm basing that on the required VFR fuel reserve. Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it spews oil everywhere, of course). You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch a fading gauge. I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions. Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream? The PSRU is another single point failure item. I don't know what one could do to increase redundancy, but plenty of design margin would be a good start. Regular, in-depth inspections would be another...guy across from me just found a crack in one plate of his gyro's PSRU. Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft engine. Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes to fill. :-) I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself into information sources to build the safest engine possible. Ron Wanttaja |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
human powered flight | patrick timony | Home Built | 10 | September 16th 03 03:38 AM |
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter | Mike Hindle | Home Built | 6 | September 15th 03 03:32 PM |
Pre-Rotator Powered by Compressed Air? | nuke | Home Built | 8 | July 30th 03 12:36 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans | MJC | Home Built | 4 | July 15th 03 07:29 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans- correction | Cy Galley | Home Built | 0 | July 11th 03 03:43 AM |